fafalone

I've been quite busy last night and today, expect a reply tonight after my physics exam.

No, but I am if they actuaaly care.

Yeah, the intruder has to pose a threat, hence I said "with a weapon". The illegal market would not be a large factor because of the same reasons theres little black market for alcohol/tobacco in the united states.

The point is just because something is legal doesn't mean the things people do for or with them should be legal. Then you believe alcohol and nicotine, being addictive psychoactive drugs, should be illegal? Yes... it does actually. I don't know how it works in your country, but in our country Congress is free to make changes to existing laws, until the constitution is involved, where it's more complicated but still happens. All we'd have to do is pass a new law stating the previous law is repealed, and then go on to create laws regulating it. Furthermore, regulation would not even be done by acts of Congress, the FDA would regulate it, and its protocols for regulation are not "laws" -- the FDA can approve products as it sees fit. So they should get to dictate the rules the rest of the world has to follow? This is a violation of rights. Should every group who doesn't want anything to do with something have what they don't like made illegal for all those who do like it? And again, your argument here does not demonstrate the case for why alcohol and nicotine should be legal. I've illustrated how the current regulation system, if applied to all drugs instead of only those with a strong tradition, would actually reduce various problems associated with drug use. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it sure is better than going around ruining peoples lives for having a little bit of powerful psychoactive substances on them. Ignorance. Your analogy is not relevant. Furthermore, murder is in fact legal under certain circumstances. It's legal for a police officer to shoot you with a reason, it's legal to execute death row inmates, it's legal to shoot someone who breaks into your home with a weapon. The rules are clearly defined to not compromise the rights of the individual.

If you're looking at 2 resumes, one says higher me cuz i wrko god Hire me because I work well. Who gets the job 100% of the time?

This thread is quite a coincidence, we spent a good amount of time in my genetics class today talking about polydactyly and inheritance.

Popular Science has published an article outling the worst jobs in science. Some of these are very disgusting, and no doubt there are those among us here who have had to endure jobs like this while working in labs, and alot of us can also look forward to these experiences as we climb the ranks of the scientific ladder. http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,12543,484153-1,00.html

Appearance of a paper matters. Spelling errors are easily noticed, and people care more than you think in the work world.

For alot of people the scrambled text is alot easier to read than the research article

pdf of previous post for convenience/images remember, only people are have access to nature should dl this 398760a0_r.pdf

I located the article in Nature that your link refers to; however that only concerns reversed speech. Article - reprinted here for use by educational institutes with site licenses and their students and faculty only: We subdivided a digitized sentence into segments of fixed duration (say, 50 ms). Every segment was then time-reversed without smoothing the transition borders between the segments. The entire spoken sentence was therefore globally contiguous, but locally time-reversed, at every point (A+B in Fig. 1). Listeners report perfect intelligibility of the sentence for segment durations up to 50 ms, and partial intelligibility for segment durations exceeding 100 ms (Fig. 1, bottom), with 50% intelligibility occurring at about 130 ms; by psychoacoustic standards, such segment distortions are very long. Many defining features of speech sounds are rapid temporal transitions with durations well within the reversal window. Figure 1 Segments of speech showing the effects of time reversal. Full legend High resolution image and legend (47k) Perception of speech against local time reversal is robust even if alternating segments are shifted in time (A+delayed B). Speech also remains intelligible if odd-numbered segments are displaced forwards in time by two or three times the duration of the window. For example, for segments of 100 ms, shifting the odd-numbered segment forward in time by 200 ms reduces the intelligibility rating by only 15%. For segments of 50 ms, intelligibility is not significantly affected by a displacement of 100 or 200 ms, but the speech does sound more echoic. Furthermore, the results are not changed if half the segments (A in Fig. 1) are presented to one ear and the other half (B in Fig. 1) to the other ear. When subjects listen repeatedly to locally time-reversed sentences with moderately long windows (100 ms), they report that previously unintelligible words become clear. This type of 'learning' is not simply due to an improvement in identification, as subjects say they can now hear actual words, indicating some form of cognitive recalibration. The experience is similar to familiarization with a newly heard accent. These findings lend support to recent theories7,8 of speech encoding that state, contrary to conventional thinking, that a detailed auditory analysis of the short-term acoustic spectrum is not essential to the speech code. Rather, the ultralow-frequency modulation envelopes in the order of 3 to 8 Hz are critical cues to intelligibility. Although the amplitude spectrum of a waveform is unaffected by time reversal, the temporal envelopes, as well as the fine structure of the running spectrum, are highly distorted for such sounds. The advantage of a robust speech-encoding system that uses higher-order corrective measures and ultralow-frequency cues is obvious in noisy environments where the listener needs to extract perceptually and identify a stream of speech cues that compete with extraneous noise, as in the 'cocktail party effect'9. References 1. Moore, B. C. J. An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing 4th edn (Academic, New York, 1997). 2. Lassen, N. A., Ingvar, D. H. & Skinhoj, E. Sci. Am. 239, 50-59 (1978). 3. Nishizawa, Y., Olsen, T. S., Larsen, B. & Lassen, N. J. Neurophysiol. 48, 458-466 (1982). | ChemPort | 4. Cherry, E. C. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 25, 975-979 (1953). 5. Warren, R. M., Bashford, J. A., Healy, E. W. & Brubaker, B. S. Percept. Psychophys. 55, 313-322 (1994). | ChemPort | 6. Licklider, J. C. R. & Miller, G. A. The Perception of Speech. Handbook of Experimental Psychology (ed. Stevens, S. S.) 1040-1074 (Wiley, New York, 1960). 7. Greenberg, S. & Arai, T. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 103, 3057 (1998). 8. Greenberg, S. I. Behav. Brain Sci. 21, 267 (1998). 9. Yost, W. A. Percept. Psychophys. 58, 1026-1036 (1996). | ChemPort |

The analogy with guns is apt. Same with legal drugs. Tradition. Your last post, and other posts, have not differentiated between why some drugs are legal and some are not. I'm not saying that legalization wouldn't require a massive social attitude shift, because I believe I've mentioned that being the main obstacle. Just because mainstream society believes something is evil does not make it so. And yes many laws would have to be passed outlining regulations and such, but that's the process of legalization that I'm referring too. Drugs are already manufactured safely, legally, and profitably... for legal research purposes. If I wanted to research the mechanisms of action for a drug, I could obtain a license to purchase drugs from a company licensed to sell those drugs to researchers.

Is manufacturing guns legally worse than actually using them for destructive purposes? What people choose to do for/with drugs is worse than making them, since as I've already illustrated drugs do not always cause health problems/crime/addiction/etc.

I've been looking for an original paper on the subject but so far no luck.

This makes very little sense. There is absolutely no reason worse offenses would have to be legalized as a result.

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Just something someone pointed out to me online... never really thought about it... but did anyone have a difficult time reading that?

You need pages and pages to get in all the details... but that's basically what happened... and before 10-43 seconds, we have very little idea what the universe was like. We're still working on the first part after that, where the idea of a Grand Unified Theory comes into play.

Between 10-43 seconds and 10-32 seconds, there was a very high concentration of very hot matter and antimatter, and there were more quarks than antiquarks, and gravity is the only separate force. Between 10-32 and 10-6 seconds, leptons formed and electroweak unification forces came into being, and then between 10-6 and 225 seconds, quarks bind to form protons and neutrons, and then from there it was onto ions, then atoms, then stars and galaxies.

Yes, or rather lack thereof.

Alot of the "hard" drugs are better for your health and mind than weed is...

It's not likely that your eyes would "adapt" to see IR light (though if a group was put into an environment with predominantly IR light, they would adapt over many generations), however it is possible to engineer IR detection into an eye. It just depends on the proteins present within the eye, and IR sensitive proteins are present in many animals. So in theory, a human could be genetically engineered to be able to see in the infrared range. As to shining IR light into your eye, it's the same type of energy so while there will be no visible reaction, the energy will effect the cells in your eye.

advanced placement exam (highschool)... if you get a 3 or higher, you'll typically get college credit for the course. some colleges require either a 4 or 5 (5 is the highest, 1 is the lowest).

Valium is a small pill.

Welcome!

That's a specific solution, not the general solution.